Re: [HACKERS] other changes
От | dg@informix.com (David Gould) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] other changes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9808310813.AA12632@hawk.oak.informix.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | other changes (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] other changes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Also, during the pgindent run, we have TypeTupleForm and > AttributeTupleForm, while we also have Form_pg_class, etc. > > Seems they should be named similar. It will make the Developers FAQ > item 9 easier to understand if we have uniform way to cast a HeapTuple > pointer. > > TypeTupleForm -> Form_pg_type > > In fact the comments in pg_type.h talk about Form_pg_type, but they then > define TypeTupleForm. > > Any problems with changing this? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > /* ---------------- > * Form_pg_type corresponds to a pointer to a row with > * the format of pg_type relation. > * ---------------- > */ > typedef TypeTupleFormData *TypeTupleForm; > There is a lot of 'ObjectVerb' naming in postgres. And some the other way too. Personally, having looked at Illustra code a few years, I am quite comfortable with the 'TypeTupleForm' flavor and would be badly confused by 'Form_pg_type' as I think of the result of the call as a 'TypeTuple', not as a 'pg_type'. Also, I suspect the TypeTupleForm style usage is more common in the code. -dg David Gould dg@informix.com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 - If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: